fuzzynormal

Talent trumps gear. If you're under the delusion that it doesn't, consider this yet another exhibit that should dissuade you from that notion. 

An EM5II.

My f1.2 FD lens glows in the dark.  Is that a problem?

My f1.2 FD lens glows in the dark.  Is that a problem?

Yeah.  If you're patient.  I have a low-end shoot tomorrow.  I usually shoot 60p with the 51mbps, but I'll roll off some 24p@77.  FYI, I use the "Natural" profile.  Contrast -2, Sharpness -2, Saturation -2, and then on the image curve settings I lift the shadow 1 notch and turn down the highlight one notch.
However, I can put the Natural profile on default as well as the curve so you'll have a base to judge.
I've never charted the camera.  I use those settings above as my best guess for post production flexibility. 

"Dji stealing costumers?"  They don't want costumes, just the people that make them!
But let's be fair, the OP is probably someone that's not using English as a native language.  Still, DJI has a rep for having non-existant "costumer" service, so it's most likely a legitimate complaint.
Still, you have to be prepared.  If your business success is dependent on one battery, you need to reconsider things.

"Dji stealing costumers?"  They don't want costumes, just the people that make them!
But let's be fair, the OP is probably someone that's not using English as a native language.  Still, DJI has a rep for having non-existant "costumer" service, so it's most likely a legitimate complaint.
Still, you have to be prepared.  If your business success is dependent on one battery, you need to reconsider things.

I'm not so sure about that.  I just think they're not willing to be on the cutting edge of video specs, because they can't really devote serious resources and development to it.  However, they can adopt the technology a little bit behind the curve.  They seem about 2.5 years behind.  So, eventually, they'll get there.
Now, if your thing is to have the bestest and coolest video IQ from a consumer stills cam, then you'll always be drawn to those models offering it.
I, however, tend to think that even median video IQ from 2015 cameras looks "good enough" already.  If you're a competent shooter, you can make most cameras work for you.  
Here's an example:  Last week I did a quick documentary style corporate shoot for 20K.  I hired a guy that I know likes to trick out his GH4 and likes to run around with a bunch of grip stuff.  Now, I did that not because I knew he was going to get wonderful footage, (I know his capabilities and that was expected anyway) but I needed him there so the set looked "professional."  And it did.  Big lens, matte box, c-stands, silks, reflectors, dead cats, audio harnesses, etc.  Okay.  So that put the client at ease.  Their money was on display.  Meanwhile, while he was doing all the A-Cam interview stuff and some misc B-roll, I was running around with a little EM5II grabbing shots non-stop.  In the end, over 90% of the b-roll shots in the final edit are from the EM5II.  Final delivery is for the web @720.  Unless you're super-discriminating, you can't tell the difference in the edit between the EM5II footage and the GH4 footage.  As a casual viewer you're just not really going to see it.  
So this is how I view the whole camera IQ debate.  What I can do practically matters.  I think I've come to terms with the fact that many people will always chase the technical holy grail with IQ, but my focus with many of my jobs (and my philosophy on how to approach those jobs) lies elsewhere.
And let's not loose sight of the fact that in 5-7 years we're all going to have robust DR, great low light capability, and 4K.  Sure, there will ALWAYS be superior IQ devices, but even if you have that capability, what are you going to do with it?  I DO get excited to shoot with awesome cameras, love being blown away with great images when I rent pro camera gear, and I know they are an absolute necessity for certain productions.  But not for all.  Not for your cat videos --or cityscape videos set to emo music.  
At a certain point when are we all just arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  I mean, even this lowly Oly camera has better IQ than the greatest auteurs of the mid 20th century had access to during most of their careers, so I say the tools are great and wonderful, just go use them effectively and you'll be happy.
Finally, as a camera manufacturer, nobody can outdo Fuji when it comes to offering lousy video in their stills cams.  They set the bar so low that it's unacceptable even for me!

Well, here's a very simple shoot as an example.  I did this for a friend over the weekend on a moments notice. It was basically a 1 hour shoot. I grabbed shots as fast as possible. 
Sure, I could have placed a tripod in a lot of spots and had the subject wait for me to compose... Or I could have let her do her thing and I would just follow, and still get cool shots along the way. 
With the EM5II, I just did the latter  
Slider shots without a rig, static shots without a tripod...it's a very nice capability to have. 
Granted, this isn't groundbreaking stuff, but this particular camera does give me some worthwhile footage. 
I don't know what else to say.  It's fun for me.  That's all  
 

I'd recommend you should go give Oly a hands on try.  The stabilizer on the EM5II is at a whole 'nother level.  Crazy good/cool.  At the very least it can be a useful Bcam for specific situations.  Driving in a car, sailing on a boat, scooting along in a tuk-tuk.  If you want or need it, it's a very very wonderful tool to have in one's arsenal.  Or, grab a cheap EM10!
Anyway, all these cameras listed here are pretty cool; can't go wrong, really.  

I just did a 10 minute corporate thing with a gh4, 5d, and an EM5II. 
If you shoot clean and expose properly you can get em to match pretty close in the color grade, but you need to be patient at it. 
The GH4 looks like it has more resolution, because it does, but you can't really tell the difference in the final online delivery unless you're looking closely. 
FWIW, I shot for a month last summer in Indonesia (hot!) with LUMIX and Olympus gear and it held up fine. I got tons of great video and looked very unassuming while doing so. 
I'd recommend the Panasonic cams. Cheap and really nice video IQ.
Not sure how particular you are about having the GH4's 4k, but the EM5II's 5-axis stabilization might actually allow you to capture better shots on the fly.  That built in stabilizer is something else.... Plus, the camera is weather sealed, which is nice to have; something else to consider. 

Man, I'll never be able to make my Magnum opus if I keep having to wait for these new cameras to come out.

Man, I'll never be able to make my Magnum opus if I keep having to wait for these new cameras to come out.

Man, I'll never be able to make my Magnum opus if I keep having to wait for these new cameras to come out.

Man, I'll never be able to make my Magnum opus if I keep having to wait for these new cameras to come out.

Man, I'll never be able to make my Magnum opus if I keep having to wait for these new cameras to come out.

I'm curious about this sort of assertion.  Not because higher latitudes are nice, but because viewers seldom got more than 12 stop of latitude from their cinema experiences during the first 95% of cinema history.  "Cinema style," by my own experience, isn't about the end viewer getting a ton of DR.
If you want to make a good documentary, DR and that sort of technical craftsmanship is a consideration yes, but I personally kind of think it should be farther down on the list of things to fret about.  Content demands to be king when it comes to docs.  How could it be otherwise?  If there's no story, how do awesome visuals overcome that sort of shortcoming?
When it comes to docs, I'd suggest being there and getting the coverage in the best way as possible for your project should be the main consideration.  Of course, the OP needs to balance those sorts of considerations out with what he ultimately wants IQ-wise.
Myself, I'd be perfectly content to shoot a doc on a NX1 with a 50mm lens.  If I knew I was going into a bunch of low-light situations, I'd consider a Sony.  I'd not worry about off-board video recording.  I mean, any camera with some talent behind the shooting will easily offer a "cinema" experience.

I'm curious about this sort of assertion.  Not because higher latitudes are nice, but because viewers seldom got more than 12 stop of latitude from their cinema experiences during the first 95% of cinema history.  "Cinema style," by my own experience, isn't about the end viewer getting a ton of DR.
If you want to make a good documentary, DR and that sort of technical craftsmanship is a consideration yes, but I personally kind of think it should be farther down on the list of things to fret about.  Content demands to be king when it comes to docs.  How could it be otherwise?  If there's no story, how do awesome visuals overcome that sort of shortcoming?
When it comes to docs, I'd suggest being there and getting the coverage in the best way as possible for your project should be the main consideration.  Of course, the OP needs to balance those sorts of considerations out with what he ultimately wants IQ-wise.
Myself, I'd be perfectly content to shoot a doc on a NX1 with a 50mm lens.  If I knew I was going into a bunch of low-light situations, I'd consider a Sony.  I'd not worry about off-board video recording.  I mean, any camera with some talent behind the shooting will easily offer a "cinema" experience.

Man, you should see the crap I do to pay the bills that I never show anyone. 
Besides, I look at stuff like what Ed David does and think...why am I even pretending.  
I came to terms with the fact that there's always going to be people out there so much better at this than me.  That's okay and as it should be.

Man, you should see the crap I do to pay the bills that I never show anyone. 
Besides, I look at stuff like what Ed David does and think...why am I even pretending.  
I came to terms with the fact that there's always going to be people out there so much better at this than me.  That's okay and as it should be.

Not me.  I'll take an aggressive grade anytime.  It's like a writer using creative prose rather than an author that avoids adjectives.  Both can tell the same story, but one just has more interesting things going on.  Subjective.
I think I like deep coloring because I grew up watching some low quality projected prints at my local multi-plex and drive in.  Everything all over he map visual-wise.  I gravitate to similar stuff out of nostalgia perhaps. 
Hey Ed, who's calling the shots for those sequences in the boxing doc?  You and the director?  You going in with an outline?  Making it up on the fly?  All of the above?

For IQ, it's not competitive.  The GH4 shoots a very clean video that is 4x the resolution of the EM5II.  The Gh4 does look really good.
But here's the thing about that:  I've edited together projects that were shot with both cameras simultaneously and the client never noticed or cared.  So, you have to decide why you want a particular camera.  Are you aiming for the best IQ?  Then go for it.  Consider 4K.
For me, I required something that I could use with quick ease and have it look really smooth and elegant handheld.  Resolution wasn't the biggest thing I was concerned about.  With the EM5II, easy smooth handheld shooting was possible more so than the GH4.  If you're interested why, just look at some of my past postings on the subject.
Here's my take on all of this:  If you buy a camera for around 1-1.5K you're gonna have something pretty great to work with.  If you buy a 4K camera for $600, it's gonna be great to work with.  If you buy a 1080 camera for $700 with 5-axis stabilization, it's gonna be great to work with.  If you buy a 1080 Lumix camera from 2013 that's been discontinued and only costs $350, it's gonna be great to work with.
There are not too many wrong answers anymore when it comes to mirrorless camera bodies.  Except for Fuji.  The video from their cameras is pretty bad.
Now, when you want to talk about lenses...then it get's pretty interesting...

Not quite. In this context, we're talking about achieving the opposite of keeping many things in focus.
In the example mentioned, the subject would be in focus and the background would be blurry. 
Therefore the image would be more pleasing because the subject would be the focused visual interest while the background would not be --on account of it being out of focus and not revealing distracting details. 
And the author of the post mentioned that the space needed to accomplish such a look would be smaller...because larger sensors with wide-open f-stops can make that look happen in shorter distances. 
Its all about the math of how light moves through your lenses and how much area you're trying to focus that light onto. 
You don't really need to know the ACTUAL math, but understanding the concepts allows you to make good decisions on how to shoot things. 

One shoots faster frame rates than your editing frame rate --if you're eager to do slow mo.  
For instance, I often shoot 60p 1080 a lot because I like to be able to use my shots on a 30p editing timeline at regular speed AND switch over to 1/2 speed on certain shots if I wish.  This works well because 60 is "smoothly" divisible by 30.  Also, the higher frame rate of 60p seems to me to use only about a stop of extra light than 30p, so it's not going to crimp you from shooting in lower light situations.
Anyway, I think Andrew's basically saying you CAN shoot in those high frame rates if you want to because they hold up visually.  In the past you'd get some weird image processing artifacts from capturing footage at such a high frame rate.  This new Sony camera will not only shoot continuously (no buffering) @60fps, but also in 120fps.  That's fun. 
Here's an example of some 120 and 240 I did 3 years ago:
If you don't want to do slow mo, or if your clients don't require slow mo, this is all a moot point.
Also, I don't understand your comment about learning a whole new grading system simply because you switch cameras.  Can you explain that?

It's called the "circle of confusion," which, when trying to understand the physics of light when being bent through curved glass, can be appropriate. 
Basically, a large sensor camera with a large aperture lens creates an image with a very shallow depth of field.  This is useful for creating images that have focus on a certain subject, like someone talking, while other things farther behind or in front of the subject are out of focus.
It's a useful look to achieve for certain things.  
If you do an online search of the phrase "circle of confusion" and "Depth of Field," you'll learn a lot about what you can and can't do with particular cameras/lenses.